4 ms·

Picking a fight with a loudmouth incumbent can be an extremely effective PR strategy for small challengers seeking to increase brand awareness. The press lives

by crmd 2y ago

Picking a fight with a loudmouth incumbent can be an extremely effective PR strategy for small challengers seeking to increase brand awareness. The press lives for these stupid games. “Mr Musk, what do you say to Lucid and your former head designer Mr. Rawlinson who say that Lucid technology is many years ahead of Tesla and you have lost your way?” If no comment, the article will be an Elon hit piece about growing sentiment that Tesla has lost its way. If he trashes Mr. Rawlingson, the article is about their piss fight. Either way, millions of readers learn about the existence of Tesla competitor Lucid. How would you respond?

cbeach 2y ago
If I were Rawlinson and wanted to be original and unpredictable, I'd go against the groupthink and -praise- Elon Musk. I'd praise Musk for defending free speech. I'd praise Musk for fighting threats to America such as political lawfare, union over-reach, and open borders. A defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment. Mainstream media would be indignant, but Rawlinson's principled stance would resonate with the silent majority and make Lucid stand out from the crowd.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > praise Musk for defending free speech I’m a fan of Elon. But he’s done no such thing. He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which in recent history was suppressed but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access. > defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment Lucid’s cheapest cars are $80,000. Their customers are high income and educated.
  - cbeach 2y ago
    > He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which historically was cancelled but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access. Musk has allowed conservative voices on x.com which were systematically banned from Twitter and other Big Tech sites. I'd highly recommend reading the Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated prior to Musk's takeover of Twitter. It's important we all understand that free speech is one of the most fundamental parts of the American Constitution. The Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled. They wanted America to be better than that.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech. Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis. > Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 [4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/historical-background-on-free-speech-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/h...
      - cbeach 2y ago
        > claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory) > Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works. Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? > What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy. You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.
salad-tycoon 2y ago
Pretty sure he’d just respond with the dog shit emoji. It’s an effective strategy to this tactic. Plus lucid is, what, about 70,000 msrp for single motor RWD? Ouch.
anonporridge 2y ago
> How would you respond? Probably like he generally does. "Prototypes are easy, production is hard. I hope Lucid manages to figure out how to get their factory productive so they don't go bankrupt in a year."
- crmd 2y ago
  Good answer!

by crmd 2y ago

cbeach 2y ago

If I were Rawlinson and wanted to be original and unpredictable, I'd go against the groupthink and -praise- Elon Musk. I'd praise Musk for defending free speech. I'd praise Musk for fighting threats to America such as political lawfare, union over-reach, and open borders. A defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment. Mainstream media would be indignant, but Rawlinson's principled stance would resonate with the silent majority and make Lucid stand out from the crowd.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> praise Musk for defending free speech I’m a fan of Elon. But he’s done no such thing. He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which in recent history was suppressed but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access. > defence of Musk would get headlines from the leftwing-dominated media establishment Lucid’s cheapest cars are $80,000. Their customers are high income and educated.
- cbeach 2y ago
  > He’s elevated a particular kind of speech which historically was cancelled but has, since Trump’s election in 2016, had zero problem gaining mainstream access. Musk has allowed conservative voices on x.com which were systematically banned from Twitter and other Big Tech sites. I'd highly recommend reading the Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated prior to Musk's takeover of Twitter. It's important we all understand that free speech is one of the most fundamental parts of the American Constitution. The Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled. They wanted America to be better than that.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Twitter Files to get an understanding of how the public square was politically manipulated This is mostly bunk. It’s true about Twitter in a limited sense. But claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others’. That’s fine, it’s a private platform. But it’s not free speech. Going back to the original point, it’s a position that has almost certainly cost Tesla billions in sales. Lucid isn't going to out-Musk Musk among the NewsMax crowd, that's pulling a DeSantis. > Founding Fathers came to America with the knowledge of what society looks like when people's speech is controlled What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The founders mostly concerned themselves with factionalism [2][3], which is historically how republics have failed. The First Amendment was framed as it was--limiting the Congress, not the public--with intent [4]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Conservative_media_in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._27 [4] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/historical-background-on-free-speech-clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/h...
    - cbeach 2y ago
      > claiming conservatives didn’t have Fox News, One America, et cetera [1], to say nothing of having their views amplified, even if critically, in all manner of national press prior to Musk is false. I was describing Big Tech (not legacy media like Fox News). On social media, sharing narratives inconvenient to the leftwing establishment resulted in conservative voices being systematically de-platformed (e.g. anyone that shared the Hunter Biden Laptop story - which, by the way, was later proved to be a genuine story, not a conspiracy theory) > Musk amplified right-wing populist (not conservative) views while silencing others Musk is allowed to tweet and retweet whomever he likes, just like anyone else. That's how free speech works. Can you give any examples of noteworthy accounts that followed the guidelines, and the law, yet got arbitrarily silenced by Musk? > What are you citing that shows the founders expressing this view? The British govt was notorious for silencing inconvenient voices. There were strict controls on speech and the press in the colonies e.g. the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, the NY printer who was charged for publishing criticism of the colonial governor. Or the Stamp Act, which taxed newspapers to suppress opposition to British govt policy. You mentioned the Federalist Papers (a series of essays that were pivotal in shaping American political philosophy) but you didn't mention No. 84. In this paper, Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights, asserting that the Constitution itself is a bill of rights. Hamilton’s argument was that the Constitution’s structure — featuring separated powers and checks and balances — provided sufficient safeguards against government tyranny, which includes protecting freedoms like speech and the press.

salad-tycoon 2y ago

Pretty sure he’d just respond with the dog shit emoji. It’s an effective strategy to this tactic. Plus lucid is, what, about 70,000 msrp for single motor RWD? Ouch.

anonporridge 2y ago

> How would you respond? Probably like he generally does. "Prototypes are easy, production is hard. I hope Lucid manages to figure out how to get their factory productive so they don't go bankrupt in a year."

crmd 2y ago
Good answer!